Structural imaging in the Rocky Mountain Foothills (Alberta) using magnetotelluric exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The magnetotelluric method has improved significantly in recent years and is being used in hydrocarbon exploration in regions where seismic exploration is difficult. This includes areas where high-velocity carbonates and volcanic rocks are present in the near surface, overthrust belts, and in subsalt imaging. Magnetotelluric exploration was used in the Rocky Mountain Foothills in 2002 to determine if thrust-related structures could be imaged through the subsurface resistivity structure. Broadband magnetotelluric data were collected at 26 stations on a profile that extended southwest from Rocky Mountain House to the Front Ranges. Two-dimensional inversion was used to derive a resistivity model that was a compromise between fitting the magnetotelluric data and being spatially smooth. The resistivity model imaged the Alberta basin as a thick package of low-resistivity units that could be traced to the southwest where they form the footwall of the Brazeau thrust fault. The subsurface geometry in the magnetotelluric-derived resistivity model is in good agreement with well-log data and a coincident seismic section. Zones of low resistivity in the underthrust rocks may be caused by fracture-enhanced porosity associated with anticlines and fault-bend folds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".